Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
U.S. NAVY SEALs 1-26;
U.S. NAVY SPECIAL WARFARE
COMBATANT CRAFT CREWMEN 1-5;
U.S. NAVY EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL TECHNICIAN 1; and
U.S. NAVY DIVERS 1-3,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
capacity as President of the United States of
America; LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III,
individually and in his official capacity as
United States Secretary of Defense; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;
CARLOS DEL TORO, individually and in
his official capacity as United States Secretary
of the Navy,
Defendants.
Case No. ___________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26, U.S. Navy Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen
(SWCC) 1-5, U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician (EOD) 1, and U.S. Navy Divers
1-3, by and through counsel, and for their Complaint against the Defendants, hereby state as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiffs are each assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command units. Plaintiffs
are U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Navy Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen, a U.S. Navy
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 38 PageID 1
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 38 PageID 1
2
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician, and U.S. Navy Divers who each object to receiving a
COVID-19 vaccination based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.
2.
This action is based upon the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, Department of Defense regulations, and
Department of the Navy regulations, concerning the denial of Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to the
free exercise of religion and protection from agency action that is unlawful, contrary to law, and
arbitrary and capricious.
3.
Plaintiffs challenge the policies and actions detailed below on their face and as
applied to Plaintiffs.
4.
Defendants’ policies and actions deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of
their paramount rights and guarantees under the United States Constitution and federal law.
5.
Defendants committed each and every act alleged herein under the color of law and
authority.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
action arises under the United States Constitution and federal law.
7.
The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 because this is a civil action
against the United States.
8.
The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel an officer or
employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
9.
The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c) because
Plaintiffs’ religious exercise has been burdened by Defendants.
10.
The Court also has jurisdiction to review Defendants’ unlawful actions and
inactions and enter appropriate relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–
706.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 38 PageID 2
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 38 PageID 2
3
11.
The Court also has jurisdiction to review and enjoin ultra vires or unconstitutional
agency action through an equitable cause of action. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce
Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689-92 (1949).
12.
This Court has authority to award the requested relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-1 and Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486 (2020); the requested declaratory relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02; the requested injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. §
2202; and costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
13.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendants
are officers and employees of the United States and agencies of the United States, and the military
workplace and the location in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims of at least one Plaintiff is in Fort Worth, Texas, in this Court’s District and Division. Due
to national security and personal security interests, Plaintiffs cannot reveal their exact locations.
PLAINTIFFS
14.
Plaintiffs are United States Navy “SEALs,” Navy Special Warfare Combatant Craft
Crewmen, a Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician, and Navy Divers.
15.
Plaintiffs U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 are enlisted service members and chief warrant
officers of the United States Navy assigned to the Naval Special Warfare Command. The Navy
selected U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 to participate in the SEALs program, and these individuals each
completed the rigorous training required to become a Navy SEAL.
16.
Plaintiffs U.S. Navy Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen 1–5 are enlisted
service members of the United States Navy assigned to the Naval Special Warfare Command.
17.
Plaintiff U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician 1 is an enlisted
service member of the United States Navy assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command.
18.
Plaintiffs U.S. Navy Divers 1–3 are enlisted service members of the United States
Navy assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 3 of 38 PageID 3
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 3 of 38 PageID 3
4
19.
Plaintiffs presently serve at various classified and confidential locations, domestic
and abroad, that they cannot disclose in a public proceeding without violating their oaths, Navy
regulations, and the interests of operational security and personal safety.
20.
Plaintiffs cannot disclose their names in a public proceeding without creating a
significant risk of compromising their missions, operational security, and personal safety. Thus,
Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for protective order to permit Plaintiffs to proceed in this case
under pseudonym and to allow safe disclosure of Plaintiffs’ identities to other counsel in the case.
21.
The military workplace where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claims of at least one Plaintiff occured is in Fort Worth, Texas, in this Court’s District
and Division.
DEFENDANTS
22.
Defendant Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is President of the United States of America and
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. On or about July 29, 2021,
President Biden directed the Department of Defense to vaccinate all service members, including
Plaintiffs. President Biden is sued in his official capacity.
23.
Defendant Lloyd J. Austin, III, is the United States Secretary of Defense. Secretary
Austin issued a memorandum on August 24, 2021, which requires the United States Armed Forces
to vaccinate all service members, including Plaintiffs. Secretary Austin is sued in his individual
and official capacities.
24.
Defendant United States Department of Defense (DoD) is an executive branch
department that coordinates and supervises all agencies and functions of the government related
to the United States Armed Forces, including the vaccination policies at issue herein.
25.
Defendant Carlos Del Toro is the United States Secretary of the Navy. Secretary
Del Toro issued a directive on August 30, 2021, which required the U.S. Navy to vaccinate all
U.S. Navy service members, including Plaintiffs. Secretary Del Toro is sued in his individual and
official capacities.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 4 of 38 PageID 4
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 4 of 38 PageID 4
5
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The President’s Orders to Vaccinate the Armed Forces
26.
On or about July 29, 2021, the President directed DoD to add the COVID-19
vaccine to its list of required immunizations for all service members. See The White House,
“FACT SHEET: President Biden to Announce New Actions to Get More Americans Vaccinated
and Slow the Spread of the Delta Variant” (July 29, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2021/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-announce-new-actions-to-
get-more-americans-vaccinated-and-slow-the-spread-of-the-delta-variant/ (“Today, the President
will announce that he is directing the Department of Defense to look into how and when they will
add COVID-19 vaccination to the list of required vaccinations for members of the military.”);
Meghann
Meyers
and
Howard
Altman,
Military
Times,
Oct.
21,
2021,
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/07/29/biden-orders-pentagon-to-
consider-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination/.
The DoD’s Vaccine Mandate
27.
On August 24, 2021, Secretary Austin issued a memorandum entitled “Mandatory
Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members” (the “DoD
Vaccine Mandate”). A true and correct copy of the DoD Vaccine Mandate is attached as Exhibit
1 to this Complaint.
28.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate directs DoD to vaccinate all active duty and reserve
service members against COVID-19.
29.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate states that service members who previously contracted
COVID-19, and now have active antibodies against the virus, are not considered fully vaccinated
and are still required to receive a vaccination against COVID-19.
30.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate provides that DoD will only use or administer COVID-
19 vaccines that are fully licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in
accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 5 of 38 PageID 5
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 5 of 38 PageID 5
6
31.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate provides that service members who previously received
a vaccination against COVID-19 under FDA Emergency Use Authorization or World Health
Organization Emergency Use Listing are considered fully vaccinated.
32.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate provides that service members actively participating in
COVID-19 clinical trials are exempted from the DoD Vaccine Mandate until the trial is complete.
33.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate states that DoD will implement the DoD Vaccine
Mandate consistent with DoD Instruction 6205.02, “DoD Immunization Program,” dated July 23,
2019.
34.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate states that the Military Departments, including the
Navy, should use existing policies and procedures to manage mandatory vaccination of service
members to the extent practicable.
35.
The DoD Vaccine Mandate states that vaccination of service members will be
subject to any identified contraindications and any administrative or other exemptions established
in Military Department policy.
36.
Defendants issued subsequent guidance stating that service members who are not
fully vaccinated by established deadlines will immediately suffer adverse consequences as directed
by their service components. The adverse consequences may include: court-martial (criminal)
prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal from
promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of special
pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, and loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes.
The Navy’s Vaccine Mandate
37.
On August 30, 2021, Secretary del Toro issued All Navy (ALNAV) message
062/21, entitled “Department of the Navy Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy” (the “Navy
Vaccine Mandate”) (collectively, the DoD Vaccine Mandate and the Navy Vaccine Mandate are
the “Vaccine Mandates”). A true and correct copy of the Navy Vaccine Mandate is attached as
Exhibit 2 to this Complaint.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 6 of 38 PageID 6
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 6 of 38 PageID 6
7
38.
The Navy Vaccine Mandate incorporates by reference the DoD Vaccine Mandate’s
provisions.
39.
The Navy Vaccine Mandate directs all U.S. Navy active-duty personnel to become
fully vaccinated within 90 days of its publication and all U.S. Navy Reserve personnel to become
fully vaccinated within 120 days of its publication.
40.
The Navy Vaccine Mandate states that “one of the approved vaccines has received
full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
41.
The Navy Vaccine Mandate requires that Navy members become vaccinated “with
an FDA approved vaccine.”
42.
The Navy Vaccine Mandate provides that “Service Members voluntarily
immunized with a COVID-19 vaccine under FDA Emergency Use Authorization or World Health
Organization Emergency Use Listing in accordance with applicable dose requirements prior to, or
after, the establishment of this policy are considered fully vaccinated.”
43.
The Navy communicated to Plaintiffs that failure to comply with the Navy Vaccine
Mandate by the established deadline—November 28, 2021, for active duty, December 28, 2021,
for reserve—will result in immediate adverse consequences, which may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, and loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes. See
ALNAV 062/21 Department of the Navy Mandatory Covid -19 Vaccination Policy, dated August
30, 2021; NAVADMIN 225/21 Covid-19 Consolidated Disposition Authority, dated October 13,
2021.
44.
Defendants have discretion in granting religious accommodations. See, e.g.,
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the Military Services,
dated September 1, 2020; Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1730.8B,
Accommodation of Religious Practices, dated October 2, 2008; NAVADMIN 190/21, 2021-2022
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 7 of 38 PageID 7
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 7 of 38 PageID 7
8
Navy Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination and Reporting Policy, dated August 31, 2021; Navy
Bureau of Personnel Instruction (BUPERSINST) 1730.11A, Standards and Procedures Governing
the Accommodation of Religious Practices, dated March 16, 2020; Navy Military Personnel
Manual (MILPERSMAN) 1730-020, Immunization Exemptions for Religious Beliefs, dated
August 15, 2020.
45.
Defendants have discretion in granting medical accommodations. See, e.g.,
NAVADMIN 190/21, 2021-2022 Navy Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination and Reporting Policy,
dated August 31, 2021; Navy Bureau of Medicine Instruction (BUMEDINST) 6230.15B,
Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases, dated October 7,
2013.
46.
Plaintiffs have spent years in training, at tremendous personal cost and sacrifice, to
attain the status they have achieved and to serve their country as part of its most elite forces.
Because of their extensive and highly specialized training, the cost of training Plaintiffs may
exceed $1 million for each servicemember.
47.
On October 13, 2021, the Navy disclosed that “[t]o date, over 98 percent of active
duty U.S. Navy service members have met their readiness responsibility by completing or initiating
a COVID-19 vaccination series.” NAVADMIN 225/21 Covid-19 Consolidated Disposition
Authority, dated October 13, 2021.
48.
On information and belief, the Navy has not publicly disclosed what proportion of
its reserve force has been fully vaccinated.
49.
A Navy spokesperson recently admitted that “multiple religious accommodation
requests related to the COVID vaccine mandate have been adjudicated and none have yet been
approved.” The spokesman added that “[i]n the past seven years, no religious exemption from
vaccination waivers were approved for any other vaccine.” This disdain for religious vaccine
accommodations contrasts with Defendants’ grant of certain secular vaccine exemptions. The
spokesperson admitted that the Navy has granted “five permanent medical exemptions.” Kristina
Wong, Exclusive: Marine Corps Commanders Using Form Letter to Deny Religious Exemptions,
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 8 of 38 PageID 8
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 8 of 38 PageID 8
9
Breitbart News, Nov. 2, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/02/marine-corps-
commanders-form-letter-religious-exemptions/. And, as set forth above, Defendants’ policies
themselves exempt—wholesale—all personnel who are participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial,
regardless whether their participation has resulted in any protection from the virus.
Plaintiffs Are Members of One of the Nation’s Premier Military Forces
50.
The Naval Special Warfare (NSW) mission is to provide maritime special
operations forces to conduct full spectrum operations, unilaterally or with partners, to support
national objectives.
51.
The SEAL Team is the heart of the NSW force. It is a multipurpose combat force
organized and trained to conduct a variety of special operations in all environments.
52.
Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen staff Special Boat Teams that operate
and maintain state-of-the-art surface craft to conduct coastal patrol and interdiction and support
special operations missions.
53.
Navy Divers are the world’s foremost experts in undersea operations including
underwater salvage and repair, maintenance, and unique construction projects.
54.
Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians are members of the Naval Special
Operations community with specialized training to handle chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons. They have special expertise in securely disposing of both conventional and
unconventional explosive weaponry on land and underwater.
Plaintiffs’ Sincerely Held Religious Objections to COVID-19 Vaccinations
55.
Plaintiffs each object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination based on their sincerely
held religious beliefs.
56.
Plaintiffs are each members of various denominations within the Christian faith,
and, collectively, they represent three main branches of Christianity: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox,
and Protestant.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 9 of 38 PageID 9
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 9 of 38 PageID 9
10
57.
Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs forbid each of them from receiving the
COVID-19 vaccine for a variety of reasons based upon their Christian faith as revealed through
the Holy Bible and prayerful discernment.
58.
Multiple Plaintiffs hold the sincere religious belief that all life is sacred, from
conception to natural death, and that abortion is the impermissible taking of an innocent life in the
womb.
59.
As a result of their sincerely held religious beliefs regarding life and abortion,
multiple Plaintiffs are unable to receive any of the COVID-19 vaccines due to what they believe
and understand is a connection between these vaccines and their testing, development, or
production using aborted fetal cell lines.
60.
Plaintiffs believe that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine that was tested, developed, or
produced using aborted fetal cell lines would force them to violate their sincerely held religious
beliefs by causing them to participate in the abortion enterprise, which they believe to be immoral
and highly offensive to God. See, e.g., Annette B. Vogel, et al., “BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus
macaques from SARS-CoV-2,” Nature (Feb. 1, 2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-
021-03275-y (explaining that the BNT162b vaccines (the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine now known as
Comirnaty) were tested using HEK293T aborted fetal cells); Meeting of the Vaccines and Related
Biological Products Advisory Committee, U.S. Food and Drug Admin. (May 16, 2001) (Statement
of Dr. Alex van der Eb, emeritus professor at the University of Leiden) (“The fetus [from whom
the HEK 293 cell lines were acquired], as far as I can remember was completely normal. Nothing
was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at the time, but
it got lost, all this information.”).
61.
Multiple Plaintiffs, prior to learning about the production or testing of the COVID-
19 vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines, were unaware that such cell lines were used in the
production or testing of any medications or vaccines.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 10 of 38 PageID 10
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 10 of 38 PageID 10
11
62.
Multiple Plaintiffs, having learned that other medications may be tested or
produced using aborted fetal cell lines, have since committed to refusing to take any medication
that is thus developed or tested.
63.
Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that the human body is God’s
temple, and that they must not take anything into their bodies that God has forbidden or that would
alter the functions of their body such as by inducing the production of a spike protein in a manner
not designed by God.
64.
Plaintiffs are among the United States’ most elite military personnel. In order to
earn the title Navy SEAL, SWCC, EOD or Diver, they must successfully complete some of the
most demanding qualification course that exist within the U.S. Armed Forces. Their physical and
mental conditioning is beyond question.
65.
In accordance with their sincerely held religious belief, multiple Plaintiffs carefully
monitor what they take into their bodies, and they are compelled to avoid anything that adversely
alters or may modify their bodies’ natural functions in a manner not designed by God.
66.
The COVID-19 vaccine uses mRNA technology, which causes human cells to
produce a spike protein they would not normally produce. See Centers for Disease Control,
“Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines,” http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/
vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html (Mar. 4, 2021).
67.
The COVID-19 vaccine has resulted in a statistically significant number of serious
adverse reactions, including myocarditis, a potentially fatal inflammation of the heart muscles, and
pericarditis, a potentially fatal inflammation of the heart tissue. See Patricia Kime, DoD Confirms:
Rare Heart Inflammation Cases Linked to COVID-19 Vaccines, Military.com (June 30, 2021),
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/30/dod-confirms-rare-heart-inflammation-cases-
linked-covid-19-vaccines.html.
68.
U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Theresa Long, M.D., M.P.H., F.S., submitted
a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, as a whistleblower under the Military Whistleblower
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 11 of 38 PageID 11
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 11 of 38 PageID 11
12
Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. §1034, in support of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Robert, et
al. v. Austin, et al., 1:21-cv-02228-RM-STV (D. Colo., filed Aug. 17, 2021).
69.
In her affidavit, LTC Long expressed her expert opinion that:
“None of the ordered Emergency Use COVID-19 vaccines can or will provide
better immunity than an infection-recovered person.”
“All three of the [Emergency Use Authorization] EUA COVID-19 vaccines
(Comirnaty is not available) . . . are more risky, harmful, and dangerous than having
no vaccine at all, whether a person is COVID-recovered or facing a COVID
infection.”
“Direct evidence exists and suggests that all persons who have received a COVID-
19 vaccine are damaged in their cardiovascular system in an irreparable an
irrevocable manner.”
70.
LTC Long does not hold an outlier opinion. For example, in a sworn declaration,
Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldoff—professors of medicine at Stanford University
and Harvard Medical School, respectively—concluded that “those who have recovered from a
SARS-CoV-2 infection possess immunity as robust and durable as that acquired through
vaccination.” Zywicki v. Washington, 1:21-cv-00894-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 3, 2021).
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D.—who is well-published in the medical field and has served
multiple prestigious faculty appointments—reached a similar conclusion in his own sworn
declaration. He concluded that “[a] series of epidemiological studies have demonstrated to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty that natural immunity following infection and recovery
from the SARS-CoV-2 virus provides robust and durable protection against reinfection, at levels
equal to or better than the most effective vaccines currently available.” Zywicki v. Washington,
1:21-cv-00894-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 3, 2021).
71.
Many of the Plaintiffs have contracted and recovered from COVID-19, and many
have antibodies tests showing that they acquired natural immunity.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 12 of 38 PageID 12
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 12 of 38 PageID 12
13
72.
At least one Plaintiff experienced negative side effects from a previous vaccination,
came to regret the vaccination, and came to see it as a defilement of his body. Through prayer and
reflection, this plaintiff has determined that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine similarly would defile
his body.
73.
Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that, upon seeking guidance
from God as to whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, God instructed them not to do so.
74.
One Plaintiff holds to the sincere religious belief that trace animal cells in the
COVID-19 vaccines, such as from swine, should not be injected into his body.
75.
Plaintiffs do not believe that staying true to their faith means exposing themselves
or others to unnecessary risk. Quite the contrary, they view life—whether their own or that of their
fellow Service Members—as sacred and deserving protection. Therefore, Plaintiffs do not object
to safety measures like mask-wearing, physical distancing, regular testing, sick leave, and
teleworking. Indeed, Defendants have employed such measures during the prior eleven months,
when COVID-19 vaccines have been widely available.
DoD and Navy Regulations Recognize Religious and Medical Accommodations for
Immunizations under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause Generally
76.
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the
Military Services, dated September 1, 2020, establishes DoD policy in furtherance of RFRA and
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
recognizing that Service Members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion, or to
observe no religion at all.
77.
DODI 1300.17 provides that it is DoD policy that “Service members have the right
to observe the tenets of their religion or to observe no religion at all, as provided in this issuance.”
78.
DODI 1300.17 provides that “[i]n accordance with Section 533(a)(1) of Public Law
112-239, as amended, the DoD Components will accommodate individual expressions of sincerely
held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) which do not have an adverse
impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or health and safety. A
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 13 of 38 PageID 13
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 13 of 38 PageID 13
14
Service member’s expression of such beliefs may not, in so far as practicable, be used as the basis
of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, and
assignment.”
79.
DODI 1300.17 provides that “[a]ccommodation includes excusing a Service
member from an otherwise applicable military policy, practice, or duty. In accordance with RFRA,
if such a military policy, practice, or duty substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of
religion, accommodation can only be denied if:
“(1) The military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and
“(2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.”
80.
Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1730.8B, Accommodation of
Religious Practices, dated October 2, 2008, incorporates DODI 1300.17 and provides policy and
guidance for the accommodation of religious practices within the Department of the Navy.
81.
SECNAVINST 1730.8B provides that Department of the Navy policy “is to
accommodate the doctrinal or traditional observances of the religious faith practiced by individual
members when these doctrines or observances will not have an adverse impact on military
readiness, individual or unit readiness, unit cohesion, health, safety, discipline, or mission
accomplishment.”
82.
SECNAVINST 1730.8B provides that “[i]mmunization requirements may be
waived when requested by the member based on religious objection.”
83.
Navy Bureau of Medicine Instruction (BUMEDINST) 6230.15B, Immunizations
and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases, dated October 7, 2013,
establishes Departmental policy and quality standards for immunization and chemoprophylaxis.
84.
BUMEDINST 6230.15B, Paragraph 2-6 provides for two types of exemptions from
DoD immunization requirements: medical and administrative.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 14 of 38 PageID 14
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 14 of 38 PageID 14
15
85.
Among the numerous medical exemptions available to service members, “evidence
of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances” provide a
basis for medical exemption.
86.
The administrative exemptions available to service members include those who are
within 180 days of their separation or retirement date and those who seek religious
accommodation.
87.
Navy Bureau of Personnel Instruction (BUPERSINST) 1730.11A, Standards and
Procedures Governing the Accommodation of Religious Practices, dated March 16, 2020, provides
“policy, guidance, procedures, and responsibilities for the accommodation of religious practices
in support of sincerely held religious beliefs for Sailors and prospective accessions, in accordance
with [DODI 1300.17] and [SECNAVINST 1730.8B].”
88.
BUPERSINST
1730.11A
provides
that
“[e]ach
request
for
religious
accommodation must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the full range
of facts and circumstances relevant to the specific request. Requests to accommodate religious
practices should not be approved or denied simply because similar requests were approved or
denied.”
89.
BUPERSINST 1730.11A provides that for religious accommodation request from
required immunizations, “commanders should make a reasonable effort to acquire alternative
vaccinations, when available, that meet both religious needs of Sailors and the Navy’s
immunization requirements as determined by BUMED.”
90.
Navy Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) 1730-020, Immunization
Exemptions for Religious Beliefs, dated August 15, 2020, provides Department of the Navy Policy
for religious exemptions from required immunizations and establishes the procedures for
requesting such religious exemptions.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 15 of 38 PageID 15
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 15 of 38 PageID 15
16
Defendants’ Refusal to Grant Religious Exemptions and Retaliation for Religious
Exemption Requests
91.
Plaintiffs are requesting religious accommodations or exemptions from
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates that set forth Plaintiffs’ sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding
the COVID-19 vaccines.
92.
Multiple Plaintiffs received a formal “COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative
Couseling/Warning” that states, “[P]er MANMED 15-105, special operations (SO) duty personnel
(SEAL and SWCC) who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on personal or
religious beliefs will be disqualified from SO duty (unless the disqualification is separately waived
by BUMED). This will affect deployment and special pays. This provision does not pertain to
medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.” (emphasis added). A true and
correct copy of one of these formal Counseling/Warning forms is attached as Exhibit 3 to this
Complaint.
93.
Plaintiffs also have been informed that any religious accommodation that will be
offered will preclude them from deploying. On September 24, 2021, “Trident Order #12 –
Mandatory Vaccination for COVID-19” was issued. The document specified that “Special
Operations Designated Personnel (SEAL and SWCC) refusing to receive recommended vaccines
based solely on personal or religious beliefs will still be medically disqualified.” In other words,
it declared “non-deployable” all SEALs and SWCCs who submit religious accommodation
requests. This medical-disqualification provision expressly “does not pertain to medical
contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.”
94.
When at least one Plaintiff told his command that he would be requesting a religious
accommodation, he was ordered to remove his special warfare device pin from his uniform. Other
Plaintiffs have been threatened with the same adverse treatment.
95.
Multiple Plaintiffs have had their requests for religious accommodations officially
denied.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 16 of 38 PageID 16
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 16 of 38 PageID 16
17
96.
No Plaintiff has received an approved religious accommodation request, and they
are unaware of any similarly situated Service Member who has.
97.
Multiple Plaintiffs have not been officially informed that their requests have been
denied but have been advised that they will be denied.
98.
Defendants have indicated that all requests for religious accommodation similar to
Plaintiffs’ requests will be denied.
99.
Unlike religious requests, Defendants have granted requests for medical
accommodations from Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Duty Disqualification
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
100.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
101.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
(RFRA), states that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1.
102.
The act broadly defines the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of
religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-2(4) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A)).
103.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court stated that the exercise of
religion involves “not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from)
physical acts that are engaged in for religious reasons.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573
U.S. 682, 710 (2014) (citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 877).
104.
The Supreme Court has articulated repeatedly that courts may not question whether
sincerely held religious beliefs are reasonable. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 724.
105.
RFRA imposes strict scrutiny on all actions of the federal government that
“substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 17 of 38 PageID 17
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 17 of 38 PageID 17
18
106.
DODI 1300.17 and SECNAVINST 1730.8B explicitly recognize RFRA
protections for Department of Defense and Department of the Navy Service members.
107.
Unless the government satisfies the compelling interest test by “demonstrat[ing]
that [the] application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), the governmental act violates RFRA.
108.
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that they cannot receive the mandated
COVID-19 vaccine.
109.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 vaccine) that would
violate those religious beliefs or suffer adverse employment action, financial harm, and potential
physical harm.
110.
The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, and loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes.
111.
Multiple Plaintiffs received a formal “COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative
Couseling/Warning” that states, “[P]er MANMED 15-105, special operations (SO) duty personnel
(SEAL and SWCC) who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on personal or
religious beliefs will be disqualified from SO duty (unless the disqualification is separately waived
by BUMED). This will affect deployment and special pays. This provision does not pertain to
medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.”
112.
Many Plaintiffs have already suffered and continue to suffer adverse employment
actions merely for requesting relief that is protected by RFRA.
113.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates fail strict scrutiny.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 18 of 38 PageID 18
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 18 of 38 PageID 18
19
114.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
115.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are also not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD operated for over a year during
the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated.
116.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
117.
Indeed, if Defendants are concerned about COVID-19 affecting its personnel, it
would need to implement these other mitigation protocols even if service members receive the
vaccine, because vaccinated personnel can also carry, transmit, and become sick with COVID-19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Science Brief: COVID-19 Vaccines and
Vaccination” (last updated September 15, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html.
118.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ rights under RFRA.
119.
Because of Defendants’ policy and actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue
to suffer, economic injury and irreparable harm. They are entitled to an award of monetary
damages and equitable relief.
120.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their rights under
RFRA to the free exercise of religion and an injunction against Defendants’ policy and actions.
Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and
this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Medical Disqualification
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
121.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 19 of 38 PageID 19
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 19 of 38 PageID 19
20
122.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
(RFRA), states that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1.
123.
The act broadly defines the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of
religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-2(4) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A)).
124.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court stated that the exercise of
religion involves “not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from)
physical acts that are engaged in for religious reason.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573
U.S. 682, 710 (2014) (citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 877).
125.
The Supreme Court has articulated repeatedly that courts may not question whether
sincerely held religious beliefs are reasonable. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 724.
126.
In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court held that the government failed strict
scrutiny, in part, because it “fail[ed] to prove that petitioner’s proposed alternatives would not
sufficiently serve its security interests.” Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 367 (2015).
127.
RFRA imposes strict scrutiny on all actions of the federal government that
“substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).
128.
DODI 1300.17 and SECNAVINST 1730.8B explicitly recognize RFRA
protections for Department of Defense and Department of the Navy Service members.
129.
Unless the government satisfies the compelling interest test by “demonstrat[ing]
that [the] application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), the governmental act violates RFRA.
130.
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that they cannot receive the mandated
COVID-19 vaccine.
131.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12
substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by rendering Plaintiffs “medically
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 20 of 38 PageID 20
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 20 of 38 PageID 20
21
disqualified,” i.e., non-deployable, even if they were to receive a religious accommodation. This
threat of non-deployability substantially pressures Plaintiffs to take an action (receiving a COVID-
19 vaccine) that would violate their religious beliefs.
132.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12 fails strict
scrutiny.
133.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
134.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12 is also
not the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD
operated for over a year during the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had
not been fully vaccinated, and in any event the reason for exemption from vaccination—religious
or medical—will have no impact on a service member’s deployability or on the lesser restrictive
methods of mitigating the spread of COVID-19 that Defendants can adopt. If those with a medical
accommodation could be deployed, so too could those with a religious accommodation.
135.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
136.
Defendants fail to prove how any of Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives do not
sufficiently serve its purported interest.
137.
Indeed, Defendants will need to implement these other mitigation protocols even if
service members receive the vaccine, because vaccinated personnel can carry, transmit, and
become sick with COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Science Brief:
COVID-19
Vaccines
and
Vaccination”
(last
updated
September
15,
2021),
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-
people.html.
138.
Accordingly, the medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order
#12 violates Plaintiffs’ rights under RFRA.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 21 of 38 PageID 21
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 21 of 38 PageID 21
22
139.
Because of Defendants’ policy and actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue
to suffer, economic injury and irreparable harm. They are entitled to an award of monetary
damages and equitable relief.
140.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their rights under
RFRA to the free exercise of religion and an injunction against Defendants’ policy and actions.
Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and
this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys’ fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to the Free Exercise of Religion
Duty Disqualification
U.S. Const. amend. I
141.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
142.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from
enacting non-neutral and non-generally applicable laws or policies unless they are narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest.
143.
The original public meaning of the Free Exercise Clause is that the government
may not burden a sincerely held religious belief unless the government can demonstrate a
compelling interest and that the law or policy burdening religious exercise is the least restrictive
means to achieve that compelling interest.
144.
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit their receipt of
presently-available COVID-19 vaccines.
145.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 vaccine) that would
violate those religious beliefs or suffer adverse employment action and financial harm.
146.
The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 22 of 38 PageID 22
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 22 of 38 PageID 22
23
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes.
147.
Multiple Plaintiffs received a formal “COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative
Couseling/Warning” that states, “[P]er MANMED 15-105, special operations (SO) duty personnel
(SEAL and SWCC) who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on personal or
religious beliefs will be disqualified from SO duty (unless the disqualification is separately waived
by BUMED). This will affect deployment and special pays. This provision does not pertain to
medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.”
148.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are not a neutral and generally applicable law or
policy. The policy vests DoD and Navy decisionmakers with the discretion to exempt service
members from the mandates for medical reasons and to exempt service members already
participating in COVID-19 vaccine trials, regardless of whether those medical trials provide those
service members with any protection from infection or serious illness from COVID-19.
149.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates fail strict scrutiny.
150.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
151.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are also not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD operated for over a year during
the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated.
152.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
153.
Indeed, Defendants will need to implement these other mitigation protocols even if
service members receive the vaccine, because vaccinated personnel can also carry, transmit, and
become sick with COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Science Brief:
COVID-19
Vaccines
and
Vaccination”
(last
updated
September
15,
2021),
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 23 of 38 PageID 23
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 23 of 38 PageID 23
24
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-
people.html.
154.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ rights to the free
exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
155.
Because of Defendants’ policy and actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer irreparable harm. They are entitled to equitable relief.
156.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their First
Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and an injunction against Defendants’ policy and
actions. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including their
reasonable attorneys’ fees.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to the Free Exercise of Religion
Medical Disqualification
U.S. Const. amend. I
157.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
158.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from
enacting non-neutral and non-generally applicable laws or policies unless they are narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest.
159.
The original public meaning of the Free Exercise Clause is that the government
may not burden a sincerely held religious belief unless the government can demonstrate a
compelling interest and that the law or policy burdening religious exercise is the least restrictive
means to achieve that compelling interest.
160.
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit their receipt of
presently-available COVID-19 vaccines.
161.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12
substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by rendering Plaintiffs “medically
disqualified,” i.e., non-deployable, even if they were to receive a religious accommodation. This
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 24 of 38 PageID 24
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 24 of 38 PageID 24
25
threat of non-deployability substantially pressures Plaintiffs to take an action (receiving a COVID-
19 vaccine) that would violate their religious beliefs.
162.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12 is not a
neutral and generally applicable law or policy. The order expressly states that its medical-
disqualification provision will apply to service members who receive a religious accommodation
but will not apply to those who receive a medical accommodation.
163.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12 fails strict
scrutiny.
164.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
165.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12 is also
not the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD
operated for over a year during the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had
not been fully vaccinated, and in any event the reason for exemption from vaccination—religious
or medical—will have no impact on a service member’s deployability or on the lesser restrictive
methods of mitigating the spread of COVID-19 that Defendants can adopt. If those with a medical
accommodation could be deployed, so too could those with a religious accommodation.
166.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
167.
Indeed, Defendants will need to implement these other mitigation protocols even if
service members receive the vaccine, because vaccinated personnel can carry, transmit, and
become sick with COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Science Brief:
COVID-19
Vaccines
and
Vaccination”
(last
updated
September
15,
2021),
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-
people.html.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 25 of 38 PageID 25
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 25 of 38 PageID 25
26
168.
Accordingly, the medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order
#12 violates Plaintiffs’ rights to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
169.
Because of Defendants’ policy and actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to
suffer irreparable harm. They are entitled to equitable relief.
170.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their First
Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and an injunction against Defendants’ policy and
actions. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including their
reasonable attorneys’ fees.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Administrative Procedure Act
Agency Action Not in Accordance with Law
5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06
171.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
172.
Defendants are “agencies” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), the Vaccine
Mandates complained of herein are each a “rule” under the APA, id. § 551(4), and Defendants’
actions complained of herein are “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency
action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” id. § 704.
173.
The APA prohibits agency actions that are “not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 706(2)(A). The Vaccine Mandates, as applied to Plaintiffs, are not in accordance with law.
174.
RFRA states that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-1.
175.
DODI 1300.17 and SECNAVINST 1730.8B explicitly recognize RFRA
protections for Department of Defense and Department of the Navy Service members.
176.
Unless the agency satisfies the compelling interest test by “demonstrat[ing] that
[the] application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 26 of 38 PageID 26
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 26 of 38 PageID 26
27
interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,”
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), the agency action violates RFRA.
177.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 vaccine) that would
violate those religious beliefs or suffer adverse employment action and financial harm.
178.
The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes
179.
Multiple Plaintiffs received a formal “COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative
Couseling/Warning” that states, “[P]er MANMED 15-105, special operations (SO) duty personnel
(SEAL and SWCC) who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on personal or
religious beliefs will be disqualified from SO duty (unless the disqualification is separately waived
by BUMED). This will affect deployment and special pays. This provision does not pertain to
medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.”
180.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12
substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by rendering Plaintiffs “medically
disqualified,” i.e., non-deployable, even if they were to receive a religious accommodation. This
threat of non-deployability substantially pressures Plaintiffs to take an action (receiving a COVID-
19 vaccine) that would violate their religious beliefs.
181.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
182.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are also not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD operated for over a year during
the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 27 of 38 PageID 27
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 27 of 38 PageID 27
28
183.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
184.
For the reasons discussed above, the Vaccine Mandates are not in accordance with
law within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) as they violate Plaintiffs’ rights under RFRA.
185.
Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy, or, in the
alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
186.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
187.
Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Vaccine Mandates, Plaintiffs
will have been and continue to be harmed.
188.
The Court should declare the Vaccine Mandates and each of the Defendants’
decisions invalid and set them aside.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Administrative Procedure Act
Agency Action that is Contrary to a Constitutional Right
(5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06)
189.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
190.
Defendants are “agencies” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), the Vaccine
Mandates complained of herein are each a “rule” under the APA, id. § 551(4), and Defendants’
actions complained of herein are “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency
action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” id. § 704.
191.
The APA prohibits agency actions that are “contrary to constitutional right.” 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(B). The Vaccine Mandates, as applied to Plaintiffs, are contrary to their
constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
192.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from
enacting non-neutral and non-generally applicable laws or policies unless they are narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 28 of 38 PageID 28
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 28 of 38 PageID 28
29
193.
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit their receipt of
presently-available COVID-19 vaccines.
194.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 vaccine) that would
violate those religious beliefs or suffer adverse employment action and financial harm.
195.
The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes.
196.
Multiple Plaintiffs received a formal “COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative
Couseling/Warning” that states, “[P]er MANMED 15-105, special operations (SO) duty personnel
(SEAL and SWCC) who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on personal or
religious beliefs will be disqualified from SO duty (unless the disqualification is separately waived
by BUMED). This will affect deployment and special pays. This provision does not pertain to
medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.”
197.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12
substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by rendering Plaintiffs “medically
disqualified,” i.e., non-deployable, even if they were to receive a religious accommodation. This
threat of non-deployability substantially pressures Plaintiffs to take an action (receiving a COVID-
19 vaccine) that would violate their religious beliefs.
198.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are not a neutral and generally applicable law or
policy. The policy vests DoD and Navy decisionmakers with the discretion to exempt service
members from the mandates for medical reasons and to exempt service members already
participating in COVID-19 vaccine trials, regardless of whether those medical trials provide those
service members with any protection from infection or serious illness from COVID-19.
199.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates fail strict scrutiny.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 29 of 38 PageID 29
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 29 of 38 PageID 29
30
200.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
201.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are also not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD operated for over a year during
the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated.
202.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
203.
For the reasons discussed above, the Vaccine Mandates are contrary to a
constitutional right within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) as they violate Plaintiffs’ rights
under the First Amendment.
204.
Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy, or, in the
alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
205.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
206.
Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Vaccine Mandates, Plaintiffs
will have been and continue to be harmed.
207.
The Court should declare the Vaccine Mandates and each of the Defendants’
decisions invalid and set them aside.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Administrative Procedure Act
Agency Action that Exceeds Statutory Authority
(5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06)
208.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
209.
Defendants are “agencies” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), the Vaccine
Mandates complained of herein are each a “rule” under the APA, id. § 551(4), and Defendants’
actions complained of herein are “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency
action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” id. § 704.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 30 of 38 PageID 30
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 30 of 38 PageID 30
31
210.
The APA prohibits agency actions that are “in excess of statutory jurisdiction,
authority, or limitations.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). The Vaccine Mandates exceed statutory authority
for several reasons.
211.
RFRA states that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-1.
212.
DODI 1300.17 and SECNAVINST 1730.8B explicitly recognize RFRA
protections for Department of Defense and Department of the Navy Service members.
213.
Unless the agency satisfies the compelling interest test by “demonstrat[ing] that
[the] application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,”
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), the agency action violates RFRA.
214.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 vaccine) that would
violate those religious beliefs or suffer adverse employment action and financial harm.
215.
The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes.
216.
Multiple Plaintiffs received a formal “COVID-19 Vaccination Administrative
Couseling/Warning” that states, “[P]er MANMED 15-105, special operations (SO) duty personnel
(SEAL and SWCC) who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on personal or
religious beliefs will be disqualified from SO duty (unless the disqualification is separately waived
by BUMED). This will affect deployment and special pays. This provision does not pertain to
medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.”
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 31 of 38 PageID 31
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 31 of 38 PageID 31
32
217.
The medical-disqualification provision of Defendants’ Trident Order #12
substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by rendering Plaintiffs “medically
disqualified,” i.e., non-deployable, even if they were to receive a religious accommodation. This
threat of non-deployability substantially pressures Plaintiffs to take an action (receiving a COVID-
19 vaccine) that would violate their religious beliefs.
218.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
219.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are also not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD operated for over a year during
the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated.
220.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
221.
For the reasons discussed above, the Vaccine Mandates exceed statutory authority
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) as they violate Plaintiffs’ rights under RFRA.
222.
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from
enacting non-neutral and non-generally applicable laws or policies unless they are narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest.
223.
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit their receipt of
presently-available COVID-19 vaccines.
224.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 vaccine) that would
violate those religious beliefs or suffer adverse employment action and financial harm.
225.
The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial
(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, removal
from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education schools, loss of
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 32 of 38 PageID 32
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 32 of 38 PageID 32
33
special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money spent training the service
member, loss of leave and travel privileges for both official and unofficial purposes
226.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are not a neutral and generally applicable law or
policy. The policy vests DoD and Navy decisionmakers with the discretion to exempt service
members from the mandates for medical reasons and to exempt service members already
participating in COVID-19 vaccine trials, regardless of whether those medical trials provide those
service members with any protection from infection or serious illness from COVID-19.
227.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates fail strict scrutiny.
228.
Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring Plaintiffs to
violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
229.
Defendants’ Vaccine Mandates are also not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the government’s purported interest because DoD operated for over a year during
the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated.
230.
Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of mitigating the
spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and regular
testing.
231.
For the reasons discussed above, the Vaccine Mandates exceed statutory authority
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) as they violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the First
Amendment.
232.
Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy, or, in the
alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
233.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
234.
Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Vaccine Mandates, Plaintiffs
will have been and continue to be harmed.
235.
The Court should declare the Vaccine Mandate and each of the Defendants’
decisions invalid and set them aside.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 33 of 38 PageID 33
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 33 of 38 PageID 33
34
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights Under the Administrative Procedure Act
Agency Action that Is Arbitrary, Capricious, or an Abuse of Discretion
(5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06)
236.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint.
237.
Defendants are “agencies” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), the Vaccine
Mandates complained of herein are each a “rule” under the APA, id. § 551(4), and Defendants’
actions complained of herein are “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency
action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” id. § 704.
238.
The APA prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of
discretion.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Vaccine Mandates and Defendants’ actions implementing
the Vaccine Mandates are arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion for several reasons.
239.
SECNAVINST 1730.8B provides that “[i]mmunization requirements may be
waived when requested by the member based on religious objection.”
240.
BUMEDINST 6230.15B, Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the
Prevention of Infectious Diseases, dated October 7, 2013, establishes DoD-wide policy and quality
standards for immunization and chemoprophylaxis.
241.
BUMEDINST 6230.15B, Paragraph 2-6 provides for two types of exemptions from
DoD immunization requirements: medical and administrative.
242.
Among the numerous medical exemptions available to service members, “evidence
of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances” provide a
basis for medical exemption.
243.
BUPERSINST
1730.11A
provides
that
“[e]ach
request
for
religious
accommodation must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the full range
of facts and circumstances relevant to the specific request. Requests to accommodate religious
practices should not be approved or denied simply because similar requests were approved or
denied.”
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 34 of 38 PageID 34
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 34 of 38 PageID 34
35
244.
MILPERSMAN 1730-020, Immunization Exemptions for Religious Beliefs, dated
August 15, 2020, provides Department of the Navy Policy for religious exemptions from required
immunizations and establishes the procedures for requesting such religious exemptions.
245.
RFRA states that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-1.
246.
The act broadly defines the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of
religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-2(4) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A)).
247.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court stated that the exercise of
religion involves “not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from)
physical acts that are engaged in for religious reason.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573
U.S. 682, 710 (2014) (citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 877).
248.
The Supreme Court has articulated repeatedly that courts may not question whether
sincerely held religious beliefs are reasonable. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 724.
249.
RFRA imposes strict scrutiny on all actions of the federal government that
“substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).
250.
DODI 1300.17 and SECNAVINST 1730.8B explicitly recognize RFRA
protections for Department of Defense and Department of the Navy Service members.
251.
Unless the government satisfies the compelling interest test by “demonstrat[ing]
that [the] application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), the governmental act violates RFRA.
252.
By refusing to perform an individualized assessment that demonstrates that the
application of the burden to the person making each request for a religious accommodation under
RFRA and BUPERSINST 1730.11A is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest,
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 35 of 38 PageID 35
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 35 of 38 PageID 35
36
Defendants have acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within
the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
253.
By exempting service members from the mandates for medical reasons and
exempting service members participating in COVID-19 vaccine trials, regardless of whether those
medical trials provide those service members with any protection from infection or serious illness
from COVID-19, while refusing to provide similar exemptions for service members who request
exemptions for religious reasons, Defendants have acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious,
and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
254.
Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy, or, in the
alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
255.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
256.
Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Vaccine Mandates, Plaintiffs
will have been and continue to be harmed.
257.
The Court should declare the Vaccine Mandates and each of the Defendants’
decisions invalid and set them aside.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against
Defendants and provide Plaintiffs with the following relief:
(A)
A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ vaccination policies challenged in this
Complaint violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution;
(B)
A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ vaccination policies challenged in this
Complaint violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
(C)
A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ vaccination policies challenged in this
Complaint violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Administrative Procedure Act;
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 36 of 38 PageID 36
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 36 of 38 PageID 36
37
(D)
A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants, their agents,
officials, servants, employees, and any other persons acting on their behalf from
enforcing the vaccination policies challenged in this Complaint;
(E)
An order declaring unlawful and setting aside Defendants’ vaccination policies;
(F)
Actual damages, under Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486 (2020), in the amount of
pay Plaintiffs will lose as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory vaccine policies
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
(G)
Nominal damages against Defendants in their individual capacities, under Tanzin
v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486 (2020), for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
(H)
Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other costs and disbursements in
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
(I)
All other further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 37 of 38 PageID 37
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 37 of 38 PageID 37
38
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of November, 2021.
Heather Gebelin Hacker
Texas Bar No. 24103325
Andrew B. Stephens
Texas Bar No. 24079396
HACKER STEPHENS LLP
108 Wild Basin Road South, Suite 250
Austin, Texas 78746
Tel.: (512) 399-3022
heather@hackerstephens.com
andrew@hackerstephens.com
Jordan E. Pratt
Florida Bar No. 100958*
FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
227 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (972) 941-4444
jpratt@firstliberty.org
*Application for admission pro hace vice
forthcoming
/s/ Michael D. Berry
Kelly J. Shackelford
Texas Bar No. 18070950
Jeffrey C. Mateer
Texas Bar No. 13185320
Hiram S. Sasser, III
Texas Bar No. 24039157
David J. Hacker
Texas Bar No. 24103323
Michael D. Berry
Texas Bar No. 24085835
Justin Butterfield
Texas Bar No. 24062642
Roger Byron
Texas Bar No. 24062643
FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
2001 W. Plano Pkwy., Ste. 1600
Plano, Texas 75075
Tel: (972) 941-4444
jmateer@firstliberty.org
hsasser@firstliberty.org
dhacker@firstliberty.org
mberry@firstliberty.org
jbutterfield@firstliberty.org
rbyron@firstliberty.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 38 of 38 PageID 38
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 1 Filed 11/09/21 Page 38 of 38 PageID 38